Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies

Abstract

Background: A significant proportion of prostate cancers (PCas) are missed by conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB). It remains unclear whether the combined approach using targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FUS-GB) and systematic TRUS-GB is superior to targeted MRI-guided in-bore biopsy (IB-GB) for PCa detection.

Objective: To compare PCa detection between IB-GB alone and FUS-GB + TRUS-GB in patients with at least one negative TRUS-GB and prostate-specific antigen ≥4 ng/ml.

Design, setting, and participants: Patients were prospectively randomized after multiparametric prostate MRI to IB-GB (arm A) or FUS-GB + TRUS-GB (arm B) from November 2011 to July 2014.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The study was powered at 80% to demonstrate an overall PCa detection rate of ≥60% in arm B compared to 40% in arm A. Secondary endpoints were the distribution of highest Gleason scores, the rate of detection of significant PCa (Gleason ≥7), the number of biopsy cores to detect one (significant) PCa, the positivity rate for biopsy cores, and tumor involvement per biopsy core.

Results and limitations: The study was halted after interim analysis because the primary endpoint was not met. The trial enrolled 267 patients, of whom 210 were analyzed (106 randomized to arm A and 104 to arm B). PCa detection was 37% in arm A and 39% in arm B (95% confidence interval for difference, -16% to 11%; p=0.7). Detection rates for significant PCa (29% vs 32%; p=0.7) and the highest percentage tumor involvement per biopsy core (48% vs 42%; p=0.4) were similar between the arms. The mean number of cores was 5.6 versus 17 (p<0.001). A limitation is the limited number of patients because of early cessation of accrual.

Conclusions: This trial failed to identify an important improvement in detection rate for the combined biopsy approach over MRI-targeted biopsy alone. A prospective comparison between MRI-targeted biopsy alone and systematic TRUS-GB is justified.

Patient summary: Our randomized study showed similar prostate cancer detection rates between targeted prostate biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging and the combination of targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. An important improvement in detection rates using the combined biopsy approach can be excluded.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion–guided prostate biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging–guided in-bore prostate biopsy; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Randomized trial.